Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned last night due to a controversy concerning his lying over discussions he had with a Russian ambassador. So, I guess this a two part question.
The phone call took place in October, so Flynn was not part of the “incoming leadership team.”
It’s illegal under the Logan Act for private citizens to engage in diplomacy with foreign governments. However, nobody has ever been prosecuted under this act, and it’s unclear whether anyone really could be.
Generally, it’s just frowned upon, for obvious reasons. The accusation, essentially, is that Flynn promised Russia either explicitly or implicitly, that Trump would lift sanctions in exchange for support or interference. Even if not strictly illegal, the idea that the administration would then be beholden to a foreign government, especially Russia, is obviously problematic.
Contact between officials of nations, especially ones that are not-allies to hostile, needs to go through carefully monitored channels, and involve only discussion and information that is authorized and approved.
Flynn just up and yacked with a counterpart about issues of national security with a not-quite-enemy state, perhaps the only one we really need to fear at this time. (I know, China.)
So, yeah, in any other era or administration this would have been trump-of-doom headlines and outcry. But here and now it’s just “Oh? I guess he should quit to keep from pissing too many people off.”
While he was not necessarily forbidden from talking to anyone, it is illegal for private citizens to conduct foreign diplomacy. (Logan Act).
Flynn had apparently discussed with Russian diplomats, prior to his taking office, the potential removal of sanctions enacted by the Obama administration towards the end of Obama’s term.
At least some of these conversations were recorded by American intelligence agencies, who monitor the communications of Russian diplomats.
After VP-Elect Pence (who was leading the transition effort and therefore choosing people like the National Security Advisor) was informed by intelligence officers that Flynn may be unsuitable for these reasons, Flynn assured Pence that he had only talked to the Russian ambassador once and the subject of sanctions never arose. That turned out to be a lie, as revealed by the transcripts of the conversations.
My bad, it was December, not October. No idea how I boned that up.
Don’t forget the real reason Flynn [DEL]was fired[/Del] chose to resign. He lied to Mike Pence, who confidently repeated that lie in public, and looked bad when the truth came out.
Flynn also lied to Sean Spicer, but press secretaries get lied to all the time.
By lying to his bosses and the media about the content of his call with the Russian Ambassador, Flynn put himself in a position where he could be blackmailed by the Russians:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/donald-trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
More broadly, we don’t know exactly what he did say to the Ambassador, since the transcript is not public. It could be that Flynn resigned rather than fight the blackmail possibility (which is just a possibility, the Justice Dept. is not actually saying the Russians blackmailed Flynn, just that he put himself in a position where they could have) because continuing investigations and exposure would have been more damaging.
and you have to love the headline that Trump is focused on ‘who leaked’ and not the issue itself. (foxnews.com as of now)
At least one of the conversations took place as late as December 29, more than a month after Flynn had been announced as Trump’s pick for National Security Advisor.
Ok, got it. Thanks everyone.
Now, do the Dems in congress have enough power to have hearings scheduled, and have the proper administration officials testify under oath?
Alone? No. It’d need to be a bipartisan call.
The minority in Congress generally doesn’t have the power to do anything without at least a few from the other side.
Because in his mind, anything is okay as long as you don’t get caught. I note that the question now circulating in places that matter is “What did the President know and when did he know it?”, which sounds very familiar to this Nixon veteran.
There are at least a couple R’s in the relevant committees who are quite peeved over the whole affair, at least in private, but Flynn’s resignation likely makes the whole thing moot.
Cite on “anything is okay as long as you don’t get caught” according to Trump? I’ve heard the “What did the President know and when did he know it?” for every president since Nixon, including Clinton and Obama, many times.
Here’s an article from cnn.
That’s right, but the mention of “incoming leadership team” in the post you quoted is actually a red herring. There’s no exception in the Logan Act for “incoming leadership teams.”
For the context of that law, a person is either an authorized government official who can carry out certain policy conversations, or the person is not. Flynn certainly was not authorized to carry out such policy conversations.
Per the act, the prohibited actions by a unauthorized person involves someone who “directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States.”
If the reports about Flynn’s phone calls are accurate, that he sought some understanding with Russia about Obama’s sanctions and Russia’s reaction to them, it would be a textbook definition of what the Logan Act prohibits. But again, nobody has been prosecuted under the act.
this isn’t the first instance, nor will it be the last, of a Republican administration trying to conduct foreign affairs, making deals, etc. before the inauguration. Reagan and Iran.
signaling in public what they intend to do as soon as the oath is taken seems to be perfectly okay. Givng private assurances is not. Hmmm. Sort of silly.
What was really wrong was the attempt to cover up, as usual.
As always, lying always gets you into more trouble than whatever you lied about would have.
Flynn, per se, is no great loss. Can only hope his replacement is a little better.
Nixon and Hanoi - worse, since it was pre-election!
Based on his large body of lies and his business dealings, it appears to me that the man has no moral compass. That’s opinion, of course, but it seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion.